ML20054L819

Memorandum & Order Granting NRC Request to Reopen Record on QA Matters.Schedule Modified as Listed.Prehearing Conference to Consider Proposed Contentions in OL Hearing Tentatively Scheduled for 820812-13 in Midland,Mi

ML20054L819
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	07/07/1982
From:	Bechhoefer C Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
References
ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, NUDOCS 8207080504
Download: ML20054L819 (7)

Text

-

4

.n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,,

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:

Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman Dr. Frederick P. Cowan Ralph S. Decker

• Dr. Jerry Harbour * -g gDJUL 7i3ot

) Docket Nos. 50-329 OM In the Matter of ) 50-330 OM

)

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-329 OL

) 50-330 OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) )

) July 7, 1982 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Reopening Record on QA Matters and Establishing Schedule for Prehearing Conference and Discovery)

1. By letter to the Licensing Board dated June 29, 1982, the NRC Staff confirmed earlier advice provided in a telephone conference call on April 28, 1982, that it was considering supplementing previous testimony by Region III in this proceeding. See Memorandum and Order dated April 28, 1982. The Staff advised that it has now determined that it is necessary to do so. The Board construed the Staff's letter as a request to reopen the record and on July 2, 1982 initiated a telephone conference call to discuss the ramifications of this request.

• Mr. Decker is a member of the Board for parts 1-3 of this Memorandum and Order. Dr. Harbour is a menber of the Board for parts 4-6 of this Memorandum and Order.

l l

8207000504 820707 PDR ADOCK 05000

• M o:L

Participating in the call were:

Members of the Board (Messrs. Bechhoefer, Cowan, Decker and Harbour)

Mr. Michael Miller, for Consumers Power Co.

Mr. William Paton, for the NRC Staff Ms. Barbara Stamiris, pro se Mr. Wendell H. Marshall, pro se (Ms. Mary Sinclair could not Se reached. Ms. Stamiris agreed to inform Ms. Sinclair of the substance of the discussion.)

From the earlier (April 28) telephone discussion, the Board had been apprised that Janes Keppler, the Director of Region III, might wish to modify or supplement his earlier testimony that he had " reasonable assurance" that the construction QA program with respect to soils matters would be implemented satisfactorily. During the recent (July 2) conference call, we expressed the view that, if this were to be the case, we would have difficulty in issuing the partial initial decision on QA and management attitude i st? ,. s prior to hearing Mr. Keppler's revised testimony. That decision ceu therefore not be issued during the time frame projected in our April 30, . "? Memorandum and Order. LBP-82-35, 15 NRC , (slip op. p. 3).

The Applicant expressed its reluctance to have issuance of the first partial initial decision delayed, because of the time impact on matters renaining to be litigated in the OM and OL proceedings. It sought to have the first partial initial decision cover all QA and management-attitude issues, with those issues affected by the forthcoming Staff testimony left open for possible modification.

Although we had agreed to follow the general course of action suggested by the Applicant with regard to other previously continued QA and

. I 4 .

1 l

management-attitude issues, none of those issues is so basic as the matters concerning which the Staff now wishes to supplement its earlier testimony.

Moreover, the Staff attorney (Mr. Paton) advised that there were substantial differences of opinion between the Applicant and Staff regarding certain i

factual material, and he predicted as much as three weeks' hearings on these

! questions. Mr. Paton did not know the content of Mr. Keppler's revised testimony. He stated that, because of the open factual questions, Mr.

Keppler's testimony could not be provided to the Board and parties prior to mid or late August. (The Staff agreed to inform the Board and parties as soon as it could do so of the date when it expects Mr. Keppler's testimony to be completed.)

The Board determined that the issues sought to be reopened by the i

j Staff were too basic and too fundamental to the Board's decision to be treated as had the QA issues previously left open. We therefore granted the Staff's request to reopen the recorc and announced that we would defer our

first partial initial decision until after we had heard the additional Staff I testimony as well as any further testimony offered by the Applicant and other parties on the reopened QA issues.

j 2. The Board directed that the Staff's revised testimony be filed at least four weeks in advance of the reopened hearing and that the Applicant file responsive testimony two weeks after the Staff's filing. (Other parties may file testimony, if they wish, at the same time as the Applicant.) The Board asked that the Staff's testimony discuss in detail the bases for the Staff's position, including the changes, if any, from tha l Staff's earlier testimony. At the Applicant's suggestion, the Board asked

[

l

-.-------n- _

, , , , - - ----.n_ ,., -----.. .

4-the Staff to have available at the reopened hearing not only Mr. Keppler but also any QA inspectors who might have more detailed knowledge of significant matters dealt with by Mr. Keppler, to the extent their presence might assist in creating an adequate record.

3. The Board pointed out that the reopened hearing sessions could also be utilized to complete consideration of a number of open questions, including the qualifications of QC inspectors, questions asked by the Board concerning the adequacy of the QA program for underpinning activities, and certain matters discussed in our April 30, 1982 Memorandum and Order. The Staff questioned whether the QA program for underpinning should be considered at the reopened QA hearings or at the time the corrective actions are considered. The Board left that question open during the conference call but has now determined that its questions concerning the QA program for underpinning should be heard at the reopened session. With respect to the other matters, all parties agreed, and we ruled, that they should also be considered at the reopened hearings.

We note that the matters discussed in our April 30 Memorandum and Order concerning which we seek additional testimony include the coverage of the QA program for soils-related activities, and activities covered by nonconformance reports NCR #M01-4-2-008 Rev. 1 (February 25,1982);

1. M01-9-2-038 (March 8,1982), and Memorandum from Darl Hood, dated March 16, 1982, " Notification of Loose Sands Beneath Service Water Piping." In addition, we would expect that testimony at the reopened hearings would cover such related matters as Staff Inspection Reports 82-05 (DETP) and 82-06 (DETP), NCR #M01-9-2-051 (April 21, 1982), Bechtel nonconformance

4 reports Nos. 4199 (including stop work order FSW-22) and 4245, and the suggestion in the interim ACRS report of June 8,1982, that there be "a broader assessment of Midland's design adequacy and construction quality

• • • " . It will also be appropriate to put into the record the results of the Staff evaluation of Drawing 7220-C-45, which our Memorandtsn and Order of May 7,1982, accepted on an interim basis, subject to Staff review, as defining the bounds of Q-listed fill. (Prior to the reopened hearing, the Board may direct the parties' attention to other soils-related QA/QC matters which should be considered).

4. During the conference call we also discussed with the parties the dates for responses to new contentions and to discovery in tne OL proceeding. At the Staff's request we provided that the Staff's responses to Ms. Sinclair's new contentions are to be filed by July 21, 1982 and its responses to Ms. Stamiris' new contentions are to be filed by July 28, 1982.

Ms. Stamiris sought to postpone the July 9,1982 date we had fixed for her to furnish a statement of " good cause" for the late filing of her contentions and additional specification of her contentions. We declined to grant that extension and advised her that our " good cause" ruling would take into account whatever date she actually filed her statement. We added, j however, that if she served her filing by express mail, she could file her statement as late as Monday, July 12 and that we would consider it in the same light as if she had filed it by regular mail on July 9. We explained that we would have to receive the filing by close of business Tuesday, July 13, because at least one Board merrber wauld not be available to receive and review it on a timely basis if it did not arrive by that date.

l l

5. The Board granted Wendell H. Marshall an extension of time to July 26, 1982, within which to answer interrogatories propounded by the Applicant. We permitted the Staff to respond to Ms. Sinclair's discovery requests by July 28, 1982.

6. The Board tentatively established August 12-13, 1982 (and August 14, if necessary) as the dates for the prehearing conference in the OL proceeding. We asked the Applicant to arrange a site tour for the Board and parties, for Saturday, August 14, 1982. The conference will begin at 9:00 a.m. on August 12, 1982, at the Midland County Courthouse Auditorium, 301 W. Main, Midland, Michigan 58640.

For the foregoing reasons, it is, this 7th day of July, 1982 ORDERED

1. That the Staff's request to reopen the record on QA and management-attitude matters is hereby granted, with testimony to be filed and evidentiary hearings scheduled as provided in part 2 of this Memorandum and Order;

2. That the schedules previously adopted for filing responses to contentions in the OL proceeding, and for responding to discovery requests, are modified as providei in parts 4 and 5 of this Memorandum and Order; and

, +

i I

a

3. That a prehearing conference to consider proposed contentions.in .

f the OL proceeding is tentatively scheduled for August 12-13, 1982 (and  !

August 14 if necessary) in Midland, Michigan. .

t FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND ,

! LICENSING BOARD

.~ f . - , l l_,.s y CharlesBechh6efer,Chaifan f ,

ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE  :-

l L

i 3

i f

4 i

i

(

i I f i

r f

i i.-,_ . . _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ - , . _ _ _ . _ _ .

_.___._.__.,______._,._____._____,.___._._____._..____.__.___.,__I